Long may fuzzy live indeed!!! The individual distance each creative person stays from their personal vision of the essence, in their creative process.
mando On Jul 11, 2008, at 7:46 AM, William Conger wrote: > I've been thinking about Cheerskep's favorite > admonition: Fuzzy. > > What is fuzzy? I mean what actual tactile sensation > is fuzzy but not, say furry? I guess furry requires a > longer sort of fuzziness, something like my cat's fur > or something long and hairy. Oh, how does hairy > distinguish from furry? Is hairy simply less thick > fur? > > None of this matters of course because for Cheerskep > fuzzy is a metaphor akin to blurry or indistinct. He > says some words are fuzzy, or some ideas or > expressions are fuzzy. When we encounter (feel) > fuzzy things we instinctively feel down to the hard > base from which it stems. Or do we? The trouble with > fuzzy is, well, it's so fuzzy. > > As an artist I think fuzziness is a virtue. In art > it's hard to be fuzzy but so necessary to achieve any > degree of genuine quality or symbolic content. > Fuzzier the better I say. But fuzziness needs to be > balanced so that one vague "stirring" (another > Cheerskep logo) reveals another without altogether > disappearing. And another, and so on. It's even > better when one fuzzy stirring begets an opposite > fuzzy stirring. Ah, paradox, the elemental life > force, the anti-matter, the invisible other side of > mass, the secret thought propping up the social > thought. Name an artist and you name a fuzzyist. The > poets call it, flatly, ambiguity. > > Why is Cheerskep so stuck on avoiding fuzziness? What > would he have us do? Is his an insistence on the the > old correspondence theory -- fully discredited in > these days of cultural theory and melting > (hmmm...melting is another sort of fuzziness, but more > optical than tactile) divides between saying and > seeing, or between reality and its symbols? > > He cares about communication whereby one person is > able to verbalize a specific thought to another > whose consciousness is "stirred" to reproduce the same > thought. And the more successfully this is done the > more useful the verbalising is. But is this how > people really communicate? I think not. Most good > conversations are like a mutual decorating of a > Christmas tree with one person adding this, the other > saying "how pretty" and then adding something herself, > and so on...until the tree is all but hidden under a > distracting but sometimes dazzling array of > decorations. The process is to and fro, a > collaborative event that often leads far from the > original "stirring" and results in war or peace. > Fuzziness is our lot, our prize, our burden, our fate, > doom and salvation. Long live fuzziness! > > WC > > Let's embrace fuzziness. It feels good. > > WC
